Sources Playing Down Climate Change

thomas_t

Blessings Collector
Nov 9, 2019
675
138
43
Bamberg
✟33,904.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This video was quoted by a Christian debating climate, here on CF.


It mentions a source from 1922 saying it was extremely warm at the Arctic [minute 2:00] ... warning that sea levels could dramatically rise.
Let's assume this source is right... it does not disprove any anthropogenic climate change.

The person speaking at the beginning of the video said, according to data from another source, most of the time it used to be warmer than now during the last 10.000 years.
This does not disprove any man-made climate change either. Even if this is what the data is indicating... this doesn't rule out man doing harm to the environment producing (more) climate change.

The last person speaking said that there was a lot of carbon dioxide in their room insinuating that it did not do any harm to the people inside.
This does not exclude the greenhouse effect from happening either, as that one refers to the atmosphere. Not to a closed room.

So if there is man-made climate change having something to do with the recent damage done to the environment, then we should take it seriously. Laughing it down should not be an option. (The four men couldn't stop laughing in the video). The environment belongs to God... not to us. Man is to care for it, but we have no mandate to destroy.

Disclaimer: I would like to distance myself from a remark against me presonally when debating this topic last time. I'm not ignorant. I'm no hoaxer either.
Please debate the topic - not me as a person.
 
Last edited:

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,279
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
This video was quoted by a Christian debating climate, here on CF.


It mentions a source from 1922 saying it was extremely warm at the Arctic [minute 2:00] ... warning that sea levels could dramatically rise.
Let's assume this source is right... it does not disprove any anthropogenic climate change.

The person speaking at the beginning of the video said, according to data from another source, most of the time it used to be warmer than now during the last 10.000 years.
This does not disprove any man-made climate change either. Even if this is what the data is indicating... this doesn't rule out man during harm to the environment producing (more) climate change.

The last person speaking said that there was a lot of carbon dioxide in their room insinuating that it did not do any harm to the people inside.
This does not exclude the greenhouse effect from happening either, as that one refers to the atmosphere. Not to a closed room.

So if there is man-made climate change having something to do with the recent damage done to the environment, then we should take it seriously. Laughing it down should not be an option. (The four men couldn't stop laughing in the video). The environment belongs to God... not to us. Man is to care for it, but we have no mandate to destroy.

Disclaimer: I would like to distance myself from a remark against me presonally when debating this topic last time. I'm not ignorant. I'm no hoaxer either.
Please debate the topic - not me as a person.
Just shows their ignorance that "global warming" does not necessarily mean "global warming", etc, but the damage done brings on another "Ice Age" in the end, etc...

Way of the Earth healing and repairing and restoring/cleaning itself from that damage and/or effect/affect, etc...

And while this does happen naturally over a long period of time, and is meant to occur naturally over a long, or very long periods of time, many say this is happening now much, much faster than it should be if it were just happening naturally, etc...

It's deceptive cause it (the earth) is meant to warm up naturally, and "slowly", etc, but then change and take a turn into cooling and cooling rather quickly or rapidly (comparatively speaking) and go into an Ice Age, then warm up again slowly again, etc, and then another Ice Age at some point, etc, and this is normally a natural process for the Earth (normally), etc, but many say is happening much quicker now than it ever would if it were just happening or occurring naturally, etc... But it is of course hard to "prove" sometimes, etc, but the Earth does go into Ice Ages at some points when the atmosphere becomes too polluted or too full of Co2 at some point(s), etc...

Many think we are bringing on another Ice Age, and far, far too quickly, where weather patterns may shift and change very drastically and perhaps almost overnight at some point, etc, normal air currents completely changing, shifting direction(s) becoming erratic and unpredictable for a time almost overnight, etc, at a "breaking point" at some point, etc, so on and so forth, etc, completely changing our weather very drastically and very violently (for us), etc, (superstorms, etc) (but a normal "normally natural" cleaning/healing/restoring process for the Earth, etc) anyway, but almost overnight at some point, etc, relatively speaking, etc...

All it would take is for some our jet-streams or air currents to change, etc, and then very violent superstorms would happen or occur that would make some of the storms we have now look like a picnic or walk in the park, comparatively speaking, etc, and no one knows what or when that "tipping point" is or occurs "exactly", etc, but they do know that too much Co2 and too little oxygen in the atmosphere brings it/them on, etc... Way the Earth brings that back or restores itself or that balance, etc... Or some might even say "protects" itself like in the case of some of us humans, etc...

Or to put it Biblically, unleashing the four corners of the Earth, bringing about mass devastation (for us), and putting to ruin those ruining the earth, etc...

Until the cycle (or process) can begin again, etc...

Afterwards, and after it starts warming up again, (slowly), tree's and forests and plant life comes back to the earth again, the atmosphere is clean and balanced again, weather patterns stabilize and become more gentle again, and more back to "normal" again, less violent, etc, and animal life starts to come back again, and in bigger and greater numbers again, etc... And all is back to well or good for awhile again, etc...

God Bless!
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: pdudgeon
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This video was quoted by a Christian debating climate, here on CF.


It mentions a source from 1922 saying it was extremely warm at the Arctic [minute 2:00] ... warning that sea levels could dramatically rise.
Let's assume this source is right... it does not disprove any anthropogenic climate change.

The person speaking at the beginning of the video said, according to data from another source, most of the time it used to be warmer than now during the last 10.000 years.
This does not disprove any man-made climate change either. Even if this is what the data is indicating... this doesn't rule out man during harm to the environment producing (more) climate change.

The last person speaking said that there was a lot of carbon dioxide in their room insinuating that it did not do any harm to the people inside.
This does not exclude the greenhouse effect from happening either, as that one refers to the atmosphere. Not to a closed room.

So if there is man-made climate change having something to do with the recent damage done to the environment, then we should take it seriously. Laughing it down should not be an option. (The four men couldn't stop laughing in the video). The environment belongs to God... not to us. Man is to care for it, but we have no mandate to destroy.

Disclaimer: I would like to distance myself from a remark against me presonally when debating this topic last time. I'm not ignorant. I'm no hoaxer either.
Please debate the topic - not me as a person.

It’s an unfortunate reality that among Christians there are those who assume for some reason that believing in God grants them some sort of insight into issues they know nothing about. It’s nothing new, here is Augustine on the same issue:


“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation.”

Nothing much has changed in the last 1,600 yrs. Personally I wonder if it is worth debating. In the minds of many, for example within some evangelical groups in the US, ‘scientists’ or at least scientists who have views contrary to the evangelical right (those who, coincidentally, are invested in maintaining their own wealth and wellbeing over anyone who might be affected by climate change), are treated with suspicion and hostility, while at the same time a character like Trump is viewed as being competent to make judgements about the validity of claims about global warming etc. For that thinking to change would take more than a debate about the facts, every individual involved would have to make a personal commitment to evaluate their own beliefs and ideas and start again from scratch.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,279
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
It is just all really about the "money" really, they could care less about the environment or the earth, etc, or future generations, etc, they just don't want anybody interfering with their making money, and making money "now", and "right now", etc...

And that is why they are really against it and are trying to way, way, way "downplay it", (putting it mildly) etc... It's all about the "cash", and bucks, etc, they could care less about anything else...

They fail to take in, and could care less about the "big picture", etc, their money is much, much more important, etc, and is all they really care about, etc...

Sad...

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

pdudgeon

Traditional Catholic
Supporter
In Memory Of
Aug 4, 2005
37,777
12,353
South East Virginia, US
✟493,233.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
Just shows their ignorance that "global warming" does not necessarily mean "global warming", etc, but the damage done brings on another "Ice Age" in the end, etc...

Way of the Earth healing and repairing and restoring/cleaning itself from that damage and/or effect/affect, etc...

And while this does happen naturally over a long period of time, and is meant to occur naturally over a long, or very long periods of time, many say this is happening now much, much faster than it should be if it were just happening naturally, etc...

It's deceptive cause it (the earth) is meant to warm up naturally, and "slowly", etc, but then change and take a turn into cooling and cooling rather quickly or rapidly (comparatively speaking) and go into an Ice Age, then warm up again slowly again, etc, and then another Ice Age at some point, etc, and this is normally a natural process for the Earth (normally), etc, but many say is happening much quicker now than it ever would if it were just happening or occurring naturally, etc... But it is of course hard to "prove" sometimes, etc, but the Earth does go into Ice Ages at some points when the atmosphere becomes too polluted or too full of Co2 at some point(s), etc...

Many think we are bringing on another Ice Age, and far, far too quickly, where weather patterns may shift and change very drastically and perhaps almost overnight at some point, etc, normal air currents completely changing, shifting direction(s) becoming erratic and unpredictable for a time almost overnight, etc, at a "breaking point" at some point, etc, so on and so forth, etc, completely changing our weather very drastically and very violently (for us), etc, (superstorms, etc) (but a normal "normally natural" cleaning/healing/restoring process for the Earth, etc) anyway, but almost overnight at some point, etc, relatively speaking, etc...

All it would take is for some our jet-streams or air currents to change, etc, and then very violent superstorms would happen or occur that would make some of the storms we have now look like a picnic or walk in the park, comparatively speaking, etc, and no one knows what or when that "tipping point" is or occurs "exactly", etc, but they do know that too much Co2 and too little oxygen in the atmosphere brings it/them on, etc... Way the Earth brings that back or restores itself or that balance, etc... Or some might even say "protects" itself like in the case of some of us humans, etc...

Or to put it Biblically, unleashing the four corners of the Earth, bringing about mass devastation (for us), and putting to ruin those ruining the earth, etc...

Until the cycle (or process) can begin again, etc...

Afterwards, and after it starts warming up again, (slowly), tree's and forests and plant life comes back to the earth again, the atmosphere is clean and balanced again, weather patterns stabilize and become more gentle again, and more back to "normal" again, less violent, etc, and animal life starts to come back again, and in bigger and greater numbers again, etc... And all is back to well or good for awhile again, etc...

God Bless!
Thank you! That is the most sensible explanation that I have ever seen.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Neogaia777
Upvote 0

pdudgeon

Traditional Catholic
Supporter
In Memory Of
Aug 4, 2005
37,777
12,353
South East Virginia, US
✟493,233.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
It is just all really about the "money" really, they could care less about the environment or the earth, etc, or future generations, etc, they just don't want anybody interfering with their making money, and making money "now", and "right now", etc...

And that is why they are really against it and are trying to way, way, way "downplay it", (putting it mildly) etc... It's all about the "cash", and bucks, etc, they could care less about anything else...

They fail to take in, and could care less about the "big picture", etc, their money is much, much more important, etc, and is all they really care about, etc...

Sad...

God Bless!
HMMmmm. Question, please?
Could you please expand upon who "they" are?
There is money on both sides of the question here, so it's not just about the money.

Money may be a starting point, but the ending point is quite different between the sides.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: thomas_t
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,279
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
HMMmmm. Question, please?
Could you please expand upon who "they" are?
There is money on both sides of the question here, so it's not just about the money.

Money may be a starting point, but the ending point is quite different between the sides.
Well, basically there are a lot of "rich people" who's money would be "interfered with" if they had to abide by a lot of environmental concerns, etc, or environmental rules and laws and regulations, etc, and that's mainly who the "they" are in this or these situations and circumstances, etc...

One's that pollute a lot, or the most, etc, in the process of their making money, etc...

If it threatens their money, to them it's like threatening them, etc, and they don't like that too much, etc...

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

pdudgeon

Traditional Catholic
Supporter
In Memory Of
Aug 4, 2005
37,777
12,353
South East Virginia, US
✟493,233.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
Well, basically there are a lot of "rich people" who's money would be "interfered with" if they had to abide by a lot of environmental concerns, etc, or environmental rules and laws and regulations, etc, and that's mainly who the "they" are in this or these situations and circumstances, etc...

One's that pollute a lot, or the most, etc, in the process of their making money, etc...

If it threatens their money, to them it's like threatening them, etc, and they don't like that too much, etc...

God Bless!
Agreed, and that is one side of the question concerning energy/ecology.
And most definitely, both sides stand to loose or to gain money, depending on what is seen as being the most important concern in the argument: is it the Life cycle of the planet, or is it the life of the people living on the planet?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

thomas_t

Blessings Collector
Nov 9, 2019
675
138
43
Bamberg
✟33,904.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'm done chasing down every single denier thing from "sources".
I understand what you are saying.
I still feel motivated.
I recently saw some people coming up with videos and other sources defending their stance that climate change isn't alarming at all... but since that thread is locked, I can't chase down their sources there, so I want to do it here.
A poster linked back to an article DELINGPOLE: 'Nearly All' Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds that referred to this study here (LINK) by Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo and Dr. Craig D. Idso.
This study was challanged here (LINK) by a scientist called Rachel Licker.

Let's have a look at how Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo and Dr. Craig D. Idso argue...

For instance, they say that a 1999 NOAA graph depicting US temperatures was correct (page 25). However, they go on saying that this graph presented a "dilemma" for not having reflected the claimed rise in global temperatures (page 25). They then follow that the NOAA adjusted the formerly correct US data due to that "dilemma".

Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo and Dr. Craig D. Idso failed to show that for those believing the global warming crisis was real, non-rising US temperatures would present a dilemma indeed.

In answering this purported "dilemma", Rachel Licker stated:
"Of course, the NOAA, NASA, and CRU [global temperature] datasets include these regional variations." (see source above)

As a conclusion, I don't believe Wallace, D'Aleo and Craig.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: durangodawood
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I understand what you are saying.
I still feel motivated.
I recently saw some people coming up with videos and other sources defending their stance that climate change isn't alarming at all... but since that thread is locked, I can't chase down their sources there, so I want to do it here.
A poster linked back to an article DELINGPOLE: 'Nearly All' Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds that referred to this study here (LINK) by Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo and Dr. Craig D. Idso.
This study was challanged here (LINK) by a scientist called Rachel Licker.

Let's have a look at how Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo and Dr. Craig D. Idso argue...

For instance, they say that a 1999 NOAA graph depicting US temperatures was correct (page 25). However, they go on saying that this graph presented a "dilemma" for not having reflected the claimed rise in global temperatures (page 25). They then follow that the NOAA adjusted the formerly correct US data due to that "dilemma".

Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo and Dr. Craig D. Idso failed to show that for those believing the global warming crisis was real, non-rising US temperatures would present a dilemma indeed.

In answering this purported "dilemma", Rachel Licker stated:
"Of course, the NOAA, NASA, and CRU [global temperature] datasets include these regional variations." (see source above)

As a conclusion, I don't believe Wallace, D'Aleo and Craig.
did she peer review her critique of the other peer review. I know this may sound petty but one article that is peer reviewed and has three climatology authors cannot be refuted by a single non peer reviewed article by some "scientist."
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This video was quoted by a Christian debating climate, here on CF.


It mentions a source from 1922 saying it was extremely warm at the Arctic [minute 2:00] ... warning that sea levels could dramatically rise.
Let's assume this source is right... it does not disprove any anthropogenic climate change.

The person speaking at the beginning of the video said, according to data from another source, most of the time it used to be warmer than now during the last 10.000 years.
This does not disprove any man-made climate change either. Even if this is what the data is indicating... this doesn't rule out man doing harm to the environment producing (more) climate change.

The last person speaking said that there was a lot of carbon dioxide in their room insinuating that it did not do any harm to the people inside.
This does not exclude the greenhouse effect from happening either, as that one refers to the atmosphere. Not to a closed room.

So if there is man-made climate change having something to do with the recent damage done to the environment, then we should take it seriously. Laughing it down should not be an option. (The four men couldn't stop laughing in the video). The environment belongs to God... not to us. Man is to care for it, but we have no mandate to destroy.

Disclaimer: I would like to distance myself from a remark against me presonally when debating this topic last time. I'm not ignorant. I'm no hoaxer either.
Please debate the topic - not me as a person.
I am not sure you are helping your argument by not fully addressing the video's points. I could say that most of your refutations are not refutations at all. For instance he said there is Co2 in the room, who cares. There is co2 everywhere. It's a natural by product of oceans and biomass. Trees need it for photosythesis and a host of other benefits including keeping cosmic rays from damaging our skin with radiation. So co2 is not a bad thing. In fact 99% of the co2 is provided by mother nature. We contribute about 1% and that 1% has doubled every ten or twenty years for the past fifty years and global temperatures have not increased at a higher rate than it did before 1950. At least I have not seen peer reviews stating so. Lastly the largest green house gas is water vapor, so if we outlawed grass for example and pools, and ponds, and other bodies of water that will tackle the greatest green house gas, not the smallest green house gas. Besides we cannot tell if this warming is simply because of a warming cycle or if it's something man is doing. So it's not one thing that is wrong, it's really the whole alarmism behind it. Yes the world is getting warmer, and in the twenties the polar ice caps melted slightly but it got colder in a few decades and it refroze. So whats the big deal?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AvgJoe
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This video was quoted by a Christian debating climate, here on CF.


It mentions a source from 1922 saying it was extremely warm at the Arctic [minute 2:00] ... warning that sea levels could dramatically rise.
Let's assume this source is right... it does not disprove any anthropogenic climate change.

The person speaking at the beginning of the video said, according to data from another source, most of the time it used to be warmer than now during the last 10.000 years.
This does not disprove any man-made climate change either. Even if this is what the data is indicating... this doesn't rule out man doing harm to the environment producing (more) climate change.

The last person speaking said that there was a lot of carbon dioxide in their room insinuating that it did not do any harm to the people inside.
This does not exclude the greenhouse effect from happening either, as that one refers to the atmosphere. Not to a closed room.

So if there is man-made climate change having something to do with the recent damage done to the environment, then we should take it seriously. Laughing it down should not be an option. (The four men couldn't stop laughing in the video). The environment belongs to God... not to us. Man is to care for it, but we have no mandate to destroy.

Disclaimer: I would like to distance myself from a remark against me presonally when debating this topic last time. I'm not ignorant. I'm no hoaxer either.
Please debate the topic - not me as a person.
I don't agree with global warming alarmism, but I love our earth, and I recycle and I am all for renewable plastics and solar and wind power development. But I think gasoline engines and coal burning power houses are here for awhile. The problem is batteries are toxic to make. As soon as china says....nope, we are not making them any more. We are up the creek. Batteries basically create a toxic waste land in the cities they are made in. That is why we don't do it in america for the most part. So that is one weak link. And without batteries solar and wind are too unreliable. So I think they should develop more hydro myself. Use gravity for you. dam up more rivers and create some power houses that way. But environmentalists are all against that. I also think nuclear power is stable now days, and there are many safe guards now that did not exist decades ago. That is another option. But until those two are developed. I am afraid fossil burning plants will still have the majority stake in electrical production.
 
Upvote 0

thomas_t

Blessings Collector
Nov 9, 2019
675
138
43
Bamberg
✟33,904.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
ah... the first poster playing down climate change in this thread...
did she peer review her critique of the other peer review. I know this may sound petty but one article that is peer reviewed and has three climatology authors cannot be refuted by a single non peer reviewed article by some "scientist."
the critique just served for me to show where I quoted from.

I think I did address the major points of the video. The fact that there is co2 everywhere does not disprove that it is a greenhouse gas. Too much of it in the atmosphere can cause too much of global warming.

You didn't provide a source for your assrtion that global temperatures did not increase at a higher rate than before.
Lastly the largest green house gas is water vapor,
interesting.
This source here: Are our water vapour emissions warming the climate? – Physics World
admits there is anthropogenic water vapor in the air and that water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas.
But they concluded:

"“This makes emitted water, at best, a thousand times less effective per kilogram at altering the heat budget of the Earth than emitted carbon dioxide,” write the scientists in Environmental Research Letters (ERL).

The model also showed top-of-atmosphere cooling, rather than warming, mostly because the added water vapour rained out before reaching altitudes where it could contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect. The researchers found that if anything, because water vapour is emitted at low altitudes by irrigation, it was more likely to increase low-level cloud cover, which tends to have a cooling effect."
Thomas
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
ah... the first poster playing down climate change in this thread...

the critique just served for me to show where I quoted from.

I think I did address the major points of the video. The fact that there is co2 everywhere does not disprove that it is a greenhouse gas. Too much of it in the atmosphere can cause too much of global warming.

You didn't provide a source for your assrtion that global temperatures did not increase at a higher rate than before.

interesting.
This source here: Are our water vapour emissions warming the climate? – Physics World
admits there is anthropogenic water vapor in the air and that water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas.
But they concluded:

"“This makes emitted water, at best, a thousand times less effective per kilogram at altering the heat budget of the Earth than emitted carbon dioxide,” write the scientists in Environmental Research Letters (ERL).

The model also showed top-of-atmosphere cooling, rather than warming, mostly because the added water vapour rained out before reaching altitudes where it could contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect. The researchers found that if anything, because water vapour is emitted at low altitudes by irrigation, it was more likely to increase low-level cloud cover, which tends to have a cooling effect."
Thomas
This is reversing the burden of proof. Global warming alarmists are the ones making the entire argument. That temperatures are not just higher, but alarmingly higher. From what I have seen temperature is not faster or slower since the 50's it's just random. It speeds up and slows down. I don't know where I seen that, but I am sure I can find it but my argument does not really depend on that anyway, as my argument is simply a negation of global warming alarmist claims. The burden really relies on you guys to post peer reviews that show #1 co2 is causing the warming. Remember co2 is only about 5% of the green house gases. There are not good studies on that part because they don't want you understanding that. And 99% of the green house gases are naturally made. That is another figure they don't want you to know. I seen that on a blog somewhere, but he makes logical sense attesting to natural laws of co2 formation, it need not be peer review. But I feel we need to see some peer reviews that say that co2 is causing the warming, and that secondly the co2 man is providing is enough to cause global warming. Remember this is not just america putting out co2, we are talking enough co2 to warm the entire globe. So this would have to be a universal study. So I really don't think there is enough information out there supporting it. But feel free to find some.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,279
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
When was the highest level of co2?

The National Geographic wrote that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is this high "for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history." The current concentration may be the highest in the last 20 million years.

What causes co2 levels to rise?

The burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas releases greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane into Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The extra CO2 caused temperatures to rise to levels that cannot be explained by natural factors, scientists report.Dec 5, 2018

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

Earth's CO2 Home Page

And a "bunch or other links", from a simple google search, just do some real research OK...?

I'm not a "alarmist" but am just saying we need to be "conscious" and "aware", and just a little bit "concerned" is all, OK... And as a "species", K...

Be or become "responsible stewards" of our planet, and not completely irresponsible ones, and not let our greed do us, or the next generations, in, etc, OK...

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I am not sure you are helping your argument by not fully addressing the video's points. I could say that most of your refutations are not refutations at all. For instance he said there is Co2 in the room, who cares. There is co2 everywhere. It's a natural by product of oceans and biomass. Trees need it for photosythesis and a host of other benefits including keeping cosmic rays from damaging our skin with radiation. So co2 is not a bad thing.

CO2 is everywhere. It isn't a bad thing in the abstract. But as a simple thought experiment, how happy would you be living in a sealed environment where the atmosphere was 100% CO2? I mean, what could go wrong? It isn't bad, right?
 
Upvote 0

thomas_t

Blessings Collector
Nov 9, 2019
675
138
43
Bamberg
✟33,904.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I was not reversing the burden of proof.
The source insinuated regional variations presented a big dilemma for climate scientists... however, it failed to provide any evidence for climiate scientists purportedly being unable to deal with that sort of dilemma.
That's all.

And 99% of the green house gases are naturally made.
Let's assume you're right... the question is what the 1% anthropogenic gas can do.

But I feel we need to see some peer reviews that say that co2 is causing the warming, and that secondly the co2 man is providing is enough to cause global warming.
the damage done to the environment is waaay too big than to sweep the concern aside saying "unless it is 100% proven".
Bible is clear, the earth belongs to God, man does not have any mandate to destroy.

While @Neogaia777 cited a source, I'd like to add the following:
If it makes sense to "only" assume it's likely that anthropogenic (your "1%") green house gases are causing the global warming - at this point already man needs to do something to get the co2 levels down. It's not a fun issue. Noone should take it lightly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
the damage done to the environment is waaay too big than to sweep the concern aside saying "unless it is 100% proven".
Bible is clear, the earth belongs to God, man does not have any mandate to destroy.
chem trails are dangerous too, so we can ask the question.

What would Jesus do?

Regulate all the business and crash the economy for chem trail allegations, or ask for peer reviews regarding it to see if it's real.
 
Upvote 0